AUTHOR=Cano-Cuartero Cristina , López-Hernández Alejandro , Rodríguez-Barbero Sergio , González-Ravé José María 

TITLE=Swimming coaches' perceptions and practices on periodization, performance monitoring, and training management

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Sports and Active Living

VOLUME=Volume 7 - 2025

YEAR=2025

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2025.1642020

DOI=10.3389/fspor.2025.1642020

ISSN=2624-9367

ABSTRACT=IntroductionThis study examined the beliefs and practices of Spanish national swimming coaches regarding season planning, aiming to gain a deeper understanding of how they organize training throughout the year.MethodsA total of 18 coaches participated and were classified based on the performance level of their swimmers: World Class (27.8%), Elite (11.1%), and National (72.2%). A validated questionnaire was used to gather information on training structure, session management, and feedback strategies.ResultsThe most reported planning model was traditional periodization (35.3%), typically structured into general, specific, and competitive phases, with individualized tapering strategies lasting between 7 and 21 days. While most coaches (89.9%) did not involve swimmers in the planning process, they did consider contextual factors such as academic and personal schedules (94.4%). Coaches emphasized strength-endurance and coordination work during early phases, shifting toward speed-strength and sprint capacity in the competitive phase. Training sessions were commonly adjusted based on objective and subjective indicators (83.3%), including heart rate (77.8%) and perceived exertion (55.6%). Feedback was mostly provided during training and addressed psychological (72.2%) and technical aspects (38.9%). Recovery strategies included active rest (22.7%), professional guidance (22.7%), and collaborative planning between coach and swimmer (61.1%). Performance assessments were conducted using tools such as the force-velocity profile (44.4%), one-repetition maximum test (22.2%), countermovement jump (16.7%), and swim-specific sets (7 × 200 m) (22.2%), although one-third of coaches did not use formal testing. While the limited sample size restricts the generalizability of findings, the results offer valuable insight into how experienced coaches conceptualize and manage the training process.DiscussionThese findings highlight the importance of individualized planning, continuous monitoring, and athlete-context integration in high-performance swimming coaching.